go to next posts

welcome to               Mumble Go to October 6 election result prediction                                   =

December 27 South/South East Asian tsunamis Last count of dead: 13,000 and rising; many more affected. You can donate to Care Australia here.

December 25

December 21 Hawkie day

Today is apparently when John Howard overtakes Bob Hawke as Australia's second longest serving PM. Nuff said; I'll leave the hagiographies to others. But just this: Howard's feat has been intra-party rather than electoral. Conservative governments staying in office eight (now eleven) years is not special in Australian political history, and any half-competent one elected in 1996 should have had no trouble staying in, given favourable global economic conditions etc (counterparts overseas have been re-elected easily). Howard's trick has been to convince everyone - most importantly his own party - that only he could have done it, and he was always their best chance for victory in the future. It's a clever trick looking so dreadful that everyone expects you to lose after one term - then two - then scraping back and so being hailed as a hero. (Fourth term was handed to him by blasted Lemmings.)

One size fits all: Move to the Middle! Only realised yesterday that man at right is shadow immigration minister. For evidence of the dysfunction of trying to ape what you perceive to be the prejudices of the 'masses', look no further than that appointment. Latham presumably believes that Laurie Ferguson ranting against the evils of refugees and queue-jumpers is the ticket to success. It'll show punters that Labor 'understands'. Instead it'll just win support for the government.

(Ferguson was a rabid Beazley critic, even though under Beazley his safe seat of Reid clocked its the biggest margin in decades - possibly since its creation in 1922 - at the 1998 election. This year it swung to Howard by about four percent.)

It is all, of course, about 'moving to the middle', a recipe inflicted on all losing parties. Before October 9 everyone agreed that the heroic Latham had dragged his party to the 'middle'. No hand-wringing on refugees or Aborigines, he spoke over the heads of the political class direct to the dead-set outer suburban angry white four wheel driving males. When that failed disastrously, it turned out they hadn't found the 'middle' after all. But now they're fair dinkum about that elusive 'middle'; they're really going to hit it.

December 20 Canberra Times

Piece by me, encompassing many of the things I go on about.

December 19 Howard's Battlers: belated whinge about Shaun Carney

You might have noticed the 'Howard's Battlers!' discourse shifting south late this year - from NSW to Victoria. NSW barely moved as a whole in two party preferred terms in 2004, whereas Victoria went to the government by over three percent to give a Coalition its first two party preferred majority in that state in 14 years, so if you trawl through Victorian results you can find all sorts of horror stories for the ALP - provided your comparison is with recent elections.

In NSW, the strategy went like this: compare the situation today with 'the last time Labor won an election, 1993' and reel off some dire numbers. 'Why, only a decade ago, Labor was attracting such and such support ....'. You use 1993 because it was Labor's best NSW result since the early seventies and and threw up some aberrational wins.

Now that Victoria has belatedly followed the rest of the country in moving towards the Howard government, the same exercise can be done, but you only need to go back to 1998, because in Victoria that was the year Labor got its best two party preferred result in living memory. And because that majority didn't translate into a majority of seats, Labor stored massive votes in safe seats - and, presumably (don't have booth data going back far enough) in strong Labor booths.  So find some Labor seats that were extraordinarily safe six years ago, compare 2004 with 'as recently as 1998', and Bob's your uncle.

Both strategies were employed in the Age by Shaun Carney last month in a piece predominately dealing with Dunkley. (His tendency to ignore redistributions in other seats added urgency to his numbers.)

Shaun gave attention to Housing Commission complex 'The Pines' whose polling booth (I think he was saying) is at Monterey Secondary College. Shaun noted a two party preferred swing of 6 percent to the Liberals at this booth in 2004. (The booth, called 'Frankston-Monterey', doesn't exist for previous booth data, but I think it's 'Frankston Forest'.)

Shaun found that six percent 'incredible'. But compared with 2001, the number of people who availed themselves of that booth shrank by more than a third this year. So are we talking about the same voters as last time? Or even the same 'type' of voters? Who's moved out? Who's moved in? I know nothing about this area, but I'll be willing to bet that, like say Greenway in NSW (yes, full of Howard's Battlers now), the shift to Liberals was largely due an increase in the ratio of wealthy to non-wealthy voters. That, overlayed with general national-state patterns, accounts for most of these so-called 'battler' areas going Liberal.

Carney also seems to consider Dunkley natural Labor territory. Yes, he says, it's had an unfriendly redistribution, but its Laborness should overcome it. The two party preferred graph at right, after allowing for redistributions, shows it not being won by Labor since 1987. (Although in reality it was Labor-held 1993-96. Graph only to 2001; this year it swung another 4 percent to the Libs). Now, of course it's nice for any party to win seats, but there's a big difference between 'natural' Labor territory and the type of electorate you only get when you're doing really well.

Dunkley is classic outer suburban mortgage belt, and it is fantasy to pretend it's 'natural' Labor. My bet is that, as has happened in the states, the next federal Labor win (whenever that is) won't include seats like that, but if the new government is competent and not unlucky its first re-election will at least be competitive there. For now they should consider them a lost cause and look to the regions. And forget about Howard's Battlers! The don't exist.

December 18 Pol Sci workshop

A few weeks ago I attended a pow wow of political scientists mulling over election result and workshopping their papers for upcoming book. Simon Jackman, an Australian at Stanford Uni in California who delivered a paper on opinion polls, brought his digital camera along, and has posted the results. (I'm in 12th photo along, after three of Liberal Director Brian Loughnane.)

Newspoll in the west

According to Newspoll, it's 56 to 44 in the west. I can't believe it - and won't until further polls tell the same story. I don't think voters behave like that, and still reckon that Labor will win comfortably. Mind you, life and people are different over there and the government pretty unpopular. (The West Australian is close to  unreadable online, so keeping track of things is difficult.) Don't forget Antony and Mr B (who a week ago reported a Westpoll with much the same numbers).

December 16 Greg Hywood

As noted earlier, Greg Hywood's combination of self-ordained gravitas and lack of insight easily make him the most annoying commentator in the country. Today's another example: if only everyone in the ALP Caucus thought like Greg, they'd get elected.

December 11 The Kelly View

Labor Caucus members shouldn't read Paul Kelly. If they do, they should never believe it, for believing it can be fatal. Today he has a long piece on Howard in the Australian Magazine (haven't read yet) and a pointer column 'Strong Man of Politics'.

The latter is vintage Kelly. "Howard, by dint of skill, longevity and good fortune, has moved Australia towards his own orbit"; "Labor's best hope is that he runs out of luck, succumbs to hubris or, finally, walks away." 

And this: "The foundation of Howard's prime ministership is his grasp of the Australian character and his translation of social conservatism, personal responsibility and economic entrepreneurship into a values-based rhetoric and, to a lesser extent, a values-based polity."

These would be harmless fairy tales if not for one thing: many in the Labor Party believe them - and behave accordingly. The election of Latham as leader a year ago was an absolute capitulation to the Kelly view; everything in that final quote above could be a description of the Boofhead leadership. Paul was among the many who thought that the Latham approach of imitating Howard was Labor's only chance. The election proved them wrong but, as Mr Kelly himself might put it, they still don't get it.

Riding the Great White Shark? A reader responds to December 6 scribbling on federal Labor leadership - specifically the desirability of a Queenslander - by suggesting the man at left. I agree wholeheartedly. State premiers don't have an impressive track record at the federal level, but they've never been parachuted into the top job. Most current premiers would have what Latham doesn't - gravitas, runs on the board, so they're safe - and Beattie in addition is the closest thing in Australia today to a Bob Hawke vote-magnet. Yes he's an over-acting ham, but like Hawke he gets away with it.

But getting him into parliament is the challenge. (Organising a by-election is the hardest part.) I naturally believe that if someone gets the chop it should be a Lemming, of which Queensland contains just two: Craig Emerson and Kirsten Livermore. Given that Emerson's own faction has already booted him out of shadow cabinet, the next step mightn't be too difficult.

Managing the transition would be tricky, requiring the aforementioned thespianism. The Queensland Premier would have to say 'no' at first, he's really much happier staying in the best state in the nation, but look, he'll take the counsel of the Queensland people. Eventually, reluctantly, he would be go to Canberra because it's just so important, the country really can't survive another divisive Coalition term. "This is bigger than just me or any other individual [ie the sitting member I'm about to shaft]" - that sort of thing.

But this brings us back to the point about lopping down Marky Mark - there's really no rush. His apologists now complain that ten months wasn't long enough, but in reality it was plenty, and there's no harm keeping him there and having the party rolling around in despair for another year. Then carefully manage that Beattie transition.

Beattie is potential landslide territory - in the right way. 

December 8 Dill of the week? This man gets good press, and is rarely pinged for the silly things he says and does from time to time. Yesterday's parliamentary strategy made the Speaker look compromised and prolonged colleague Dee-Anne Kelly's discomfort. Yet he escaped unscathed. He is Leadership Material, you see.

December 7 Newspoll

I get a plug in crikey newsletter apropos of Newspoll this afternoon - so I'll say something about it.

These points:

• An opposition slump (and hike in government support) is usual after election. I noted this after the election

• Those record approval ratings of Boofhead's are gone forever. Apart from anything else, they must have always contained a large whack of Laborites, say 20 to 30% of population, who thought he was going to deliver the promised land - unlike that hopeless Crean - and so, when phoned, said he's doing a smashing job indeed.

• His preferred PM might climb again, but probably not to previous levels (which were never as high as Beazley's).

• Newspoll (and Morgan's) preference distributions were so poor during the campaign (favouring Labor too much) that perhaps we should do them ourselves from now on. That is, ignore theirs and calculate our own from their rounded primary figures, using as Galaxy did the individual party flows at previous election. (Not worth the effort doing this until next year.) 

• It's likely Labor will get back to close to 49% 2pp or so by say April next year.

• Latham's chances of surviving until the next election: about one in ten. Big question: will he go quietly or trash the joint on the way out?

December 6 Milne on Shorten .. again!

Glenn Milne carrying on about Bill Shorten again. He is silly. But I'm glad he brought him up, so that this short unpublished piece from the week before last doesn't go to waste.

Election workshop

Attended a get-together at ANU over weekend at which various famous political scientists mulled over election and workshopped their papers for upcoming book. Party reps also spoke. Sat next to Malcolm McPendulum. All veddy interesting. Even got my two cents in on occasion.

Some points of broad agreement: Labor's parliamentary gene pool is dire; mortgage-belters were biggest Coalition swingers; economy very good for government. Rod Cavalier thinks it's time to say goodbye to unions. Much more, but you'll have to read the book.

Leadership! Who will be the next Labor leader? I've long rabbited on about the desirability of a Queenslander. Just as many believe US Democratic presidents must be southerners, Queensland is a big state with a small state mentality and alone contains almost enough gettable seats for victory.

So that's an argument for Kevin Rudd, who has many other things going for him. But apparently most of Caucus can't stand him, plus that sing-song verbosity might wear thin and the public could find him the most annoying opposition leader since federation.

Smith?

Stephen Smith, I reckon, has a certain seriousness and earnestness that could hit the spot. Comes across as no-nonsense and issues-oriented, and importantly, unlike Rudd (and Latham for that matter), he doesn't seem "up himself". Good-looking and solid. Sure, he's an apparatchik who's possibly not entertained an interesting thought in his life, and a Smith Prime Ministership sounds as inspiring as a Crean one, but politics is about the possible, and as I often say, being safe trumps everything.

December 4 Howard the conqueror - here we go again

When John Howard came from behind to win the 2001 and - to a lesser extent - 1998 elections, the revisionism was absolute. Despite trailing by double digits in the polls, Howard had been playing with Kim Beazley all along; he always knew he'd win. We shouldn't have doubted him. We're now seeing much the same thing: the wily PM always had Latham on toast. All those observations of a 'ratty'-looking Liberal leader, sounding old and tired, desperate to keep his job, have been airbrushed. Howard is unbeatable, always was and always will be.

All of this matters because it affects the behaviour of the ALP Caucus. Its members read the papers too and include, as we saw a little over a year ago, a dill or two. It was this sort of template that gave us Mark Latham as Labor leader - the only one who was Howard enough to beat Howard. Perhaps if Costello becomes PM Labor Caucus will try to find a Costello clone.

December 2 Boofhead Day - time to get rid of Marky Mark?

'No!' says I. Keep the Lad in place for twelve or so months; there's really no rush. Yes, he must be punished, but a slow political death - depleting his own capital rather than the party's - will partly atone for his sins of December 2 2003. Something imaginative must also be found for the remaining Lemmings. They too should be made to suffer, for they gave the country three more years of John Howard.

November 29 2004 Tradesmen

Glenn Milne today reports modelling showing tradesmen no longer vote Labor. The starting point, the golden age for the party awash with tradespeople, is 1966 - you know, fresh from 8 election losses in a row and just two wins from about the last fifteen. Since then they've won seven from 15. Maybe tradesmen are over-rated.

[Update: the research Milne referred to was done by John Black.]

November 28 In defence of Marky Mark: the Lad's not that bad Everyone's trying to outdo each other's anti-Latham stories. A typical example in The Australian (like Pamela Williams's book The Victory on the 1996 federal election), in which various Labor machine men disassociate themselves from the debacle, blaming the leader's 'erratic' campaign decisions.

The authors include this: Latham led Labor to "its second worst election result since WWII". Now, it's true that Latham took his party backwards, but that description isn't close to being true. There must be ten worse results for Labor since WWII - eg 1996, 1977, 1975, 1966 ....

They're looking at the primary vote, but on that score Labor's "best" result was in 1954 - when the party lost, and its fourth worst was 1990 - which it won. Latham did poorly, but he wasn't that bad.

And all those "senior members", "strategists", "campaign veterans", "insiders" etc dishing the dirt might all be one and the same - perhaps Senator Stephen Conroy. 

(A piece in yesterday's Age described Latham at a Eureka ceremony on Thursday night, how he was grumpy and left immediately after official duties. Not true; I was there, and Mr L was still chatting to people when I left half an hour after the speeches.)

Western Australia

Antony Green is up and running.

Labor's Federal Campaign

There's nothing wrong with a little post-election self-flagellation, but the campaign wasn't the problem. It was not too bad, as was the government's. Everyone who at five to six on October 9 knew that Medicare Gold was a work of sublimeness and the forest policy fine as well, were calling them disasters from about 7pm. They have to find something to say. 

The problem is when the ALP believes the guff and tells itself that if only it had run a better campaign it would have won. More importantly, if it takes away the wrong specific lessons, such as 'next time we'll talk about nothing but interest rates'.

The forest policy was a little weird, but hardly election turning. One myth about the final week, which also included that handshake, is that Labor support collapsed in the last few days. The opinion polls were actually internally consistent from the previous weekend right through (Nielsen showing big Coalition win, Newspoll lineball etc).

Walkley Magazine

Speaking of which, I should be in the Walkley Magazine out now (haven't seen it yet) on opinion polls in campaign.